First, I believe I said a NASA scientist first testified to congress about this, and that is when this controversy first arose. --not that no one had thought of it earlier.



Second, No, I am not a researcher. But I have read many articles on global warming, and those that refute it make a lot more sense than those articles that support it. Are you a researcher? If so, could you explain to me why most of the warming in the last 150 years occurred prior to green house gasses? Why is there so little now that there are a lot of green house gasses? How much does water vapor contribute compared to CO2?



Third, I have looked into how insignificant we are as far as green house gasses are concerned. We produce very, very little compared to the environment.



I couldn't agree more with you about not believing me and instructing other to read more about it. (I have read around 100 articles on this subject.) That is how I formed my opinion.--Primarily from NASA though, since they changed their position on global warming. This tells me they are more interested it allowing data to form their opinion, than others who try to find data to support their position.



And for those that look into this further, do more than just read articles. For instance, you will find every environmental or liberal group on the planet saying things like "There is a consensus of scientists that believe in global warming!". Look for evidence of this and you will find they have none. The opposition will show you evidence (polls for instance) and you will find the exact opposite is true of what the environmentalists are saying. (I tend to find empirical data more substantial than opinions.) Be critical and don't believe everything you read. And above all, don't belive it if it doesn't make sense!



Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]